The Impact of Voucher Coupons on the Uptake of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Mozambique
|
|
- Cecily Hodges
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 The Impact of Voucher Coupons on the Uptake of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Mozambique Michael R. Carter, Rachid Laajaj and Dean Yang Forthcoming, American Journal of Agricultural Economics Papers and Proceedings The use of improved seeds and fertilizer contributed to large productivity gains in many parts of the developing world over the last 50 years. And yet this green revolution largely bypassed the African continent, which, over the 1960 to 2000 period, registered the lowest yield increases of all world regions (Evenson and Gollin 2003). According to FAO statistics, African farmers in 2009 used on average only 13 kilograms of fertilizer per hectare, compared with an average of 94 kilograms per hectare in other developing countries. In response to this apparent underutilization of fertilizers, a number of African governments have recently introduced fertilizer subsidies that operate through voucher coupons. Despite the wide-spread adoption of this instrument, the effectiveness of voucher coupons in boosting input use in both the short and the medium term remains largely untested. 1 In an effort to fill this evidence gap, we here report initial results from a pilot intervention in Mozambique designed to evaluate the impact of voucher coupons in both in the short and medium terms. Unlike many of its neighbors that launched nationwide fertilizer subsidy programs, Mozambique piloted a limited, two-year fertilizer subsidy program for maize and rice producers. The pilot targeted 25,000 farmers over the and crop Michael Carter (mrcarter@ucdavis.edu) is professor, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California, Davis. Rachid Laajaj (rlaajaj@gmail.com) is a post-doctoral fellow, Paris School of Economics. Dean Yang (deanyang@umich.edu) is associate professor, Department of Economics and Ford School of Public Policy, University of Michigan. We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the US Agency for International Development Cooperative Agreement No. EDH-A through the BASIS Assets and Market Access CRSP. We also thank the International Fertilizer Development Center and the Banco Oportunidade de Mocambique for their support and collaboration in the implementation of this work.
2 years. The limited scope of this program allowed the research team, in cooperation with the Ministry of Agriculture in Mozambique, to design and implement a randomized controlled trial of the voucher coupon system. In addition, the research team overlay the voucher intervention with a savings promotion program designed to see if improved savings services would enhance the long-run impacts of the voucher program. In this paper, we lay out the logic and impact evaluation methodology of this multi-dimensional intervention. We also report first results showing the short-term impacts of the voucher program on farmer use of improved seeds and fertilizer. Using methods that account for the endogenous decision to use a randomly distributed voucher coupons, we find that impact of the voucher coupons on use of seeds and fertilizers are large for those that choose to use them. While this finding indicates that there are real liquidity and other constraints that block the use of the inputs by small-scale farmers, we also puzzlingly find that the uptake and use of the voucher coupons is surprisingly low, well below 50%. These latter finding signals the existence of additional constraints that must be addressed if higher uptake rates are to be obtained even in the short-run. Short-term Logic and Limitations of Voucher Coupons In the 1970 s and early 1980 s, a majority of African countries subsidized and sold fertilizer through state-owned enterprises. These programs were roundly criticized for being costly, inefficient, overwhelmingly beneficial to large farmers, and detrimental to the private sector. In contrast, voucher coupons are intended for distribution exclusively to poor farmers, who then use the coupons to purchase inputs, often with a cash copayment. These voucher schemes have been argued to offer the advantages of traditional fertilizer subsidy, while targeting the poor more effectively and stimulating, rather than undermining, the private sector. In principal, these voucher schemes should address the many of the barriers traditionally hypothesized to limit the uptake of improved technology by resourceconstrained farmers, including credit constraints, risk aversion, information barriers on how to use the technology, information on returns to the technology, and constraints to the reliable supply of agricultural inputs. Making inputs affordable during a limited 2
3 period can allow farmers to experiment and familiarize themselves with the technology, while making a profit that will allow them to save enough to afford further inputs in the future. Under this logic, coupons will stimulate reliable, long-term demand for seeds and fertilizer, which in turn is expected to stimulate a reliable and widely spread supply of these inputs by the private sector. While this short-term logic of voucher coupons is straightforward, it rests on a multiplicity of assumptions beyond the presumed profitability of fertilizers and improved seeds. These assumptions include the government's ability to efficiently target and administer the program, the responsiveness of private input suppliers to voucher-induced demand, and small farmers' willingness and ability to meet co-payments and to learn rapidly despite the stochasticity of production. There is some evidence that these assumptions fail. Minot and Benson (2009), for example, document instances in which voucher programs have failed to really target the poor and generally exhibited low cost effectiveness. The randomized trial reported here is intended to speak directly to these shortterm issues. Table 1 illustrates the experimental design for our study. Along the first dimension (the rows of table 1), a set of voucher-eligible farmers was randomly divided between those that gained access to voucher coupons (we terms this group voucher winners ), and those that did not ( voucher losers ). The latter group can of course function as valid control group for the former. The short run question is whether input use and ultimately yields increase over the two-year pilot period for those that gain access to the voucher coupons. Medium-term Logic and Limitations of Voucher Coupons While voucher coupons may be effective in the short-run of the subsidy, a second question is what happens after the expiration of the voucher program. While some countries (e.g., Malawi) have made voucher coupons a permanent (and expensive) feature of agricultural policy, others presume that self- or other sources of finance can replace the subsidies provided by the coupons and sustain the uptake of the improved technologies. While yield increases might be sustained, it may also be the case that input use and yields 3
4 return to the level of the control group that never experienced the subsidies. In Mozambique, where small farm households rarely have institutionalized savings, and where small farm agricultural credit is almost non-existent, the question about the sustainability of technology uptake is especially relevant. As part of a long-term research strategy, the randomized trial set up to explore the impacts of voucher coupons in Mozambique was expanded to consider the impact of savings interventions on the sustainability of any technology uptake induced by the voucher coupons. In collaboration with the Opportunity Bank of Mozambique s mobile banking services, the research team designed several savings interventions (ranging from simple education to a matched savings program designed to further incentivize use of formal savings instruments). As illustrated in table 1, both voucher winners and losers were randomly divided amongst three savings intervention groups. The base group was simply informed about the availability of mobile banking, the second group was given additional help on account opening and financial training on the advantages of institutionalized savings, while a third group was also given matched savings incentives (meaning individuals received a 50% savings match if they met a pre-specified savings target calibrated on the costs of a maize input package). Over the longer-term, analysis of the technology use of these different groups should help signal which constraints limit the uptake of improved seeds and fertilizers. The remainder of this paper, however, will focus only on the short-term, voucher coupon impacts of the pilot. The Voucher Coupon Pilot in Mozambique Agriculture in Mozambique is dominated by small-scale farming, with little to no use of tractors, ploughs, fertilizer, pesticides, irrigation and other agro-inputs. Small farms use fertilizer, if at all, on cash crops rather than on cereals. Yields of the latter are low, generally below one ton per-hectare for maize production (compared to up to 8 tons per hectare in the most productive developing countries). The nascent input market is small and its network unsubstantial. 4
5 Against this backdrop, Mozambique launched its two-year voucher coupon pilot intended to benefit 25,000 small-scale maize and rice producers. 2 The maize portion of the program (12,500 farmers) was located in Manica province, which is in the center west of the country and shares a border with Zimbabwe. For maize, the voucher coupon underwrote the purchase of a technology package designed for a half-hectare of improved maize production: 12.5 kg of improved seeds (either OPV or hybrid); and, 100kg of fertilizer (50 kg of urea and 50 kg of NPK ). The market value of this package was about USD 117, with farmers required to co-pay about USD 32, or 23% of the total cost. For purposes of this study, 75 villages in Manica were selected. Within villages, individuals were deemed eligible for a voucher coupon if they met the standard program criteria: Farming between 0.5 hectare and 5 hectares of maize; Being a progressive farmer, defined as a producer interested in modernization of their production methods and commercial farming; Having access to agricultural extension and access to input and output markets; Being able and willing to pay for the remaining 27% of the package cost. Given the absence of prior data on maize cultivated and other necessary information, lists of eligible farmers were created jointly by agricultural extension, local leaders, and agroinput retailers, under the supervision of the IFDC. Farmers were asked to register only if they had the money to complete the subsidy. Only one person per-household was allowed to register. The farmers were informed that a lottery would occur and only half of those on the list would be win a voucher. After official approval of the Provincial Service of Agriculture of Manica, the lists of possible participants were used to randomly assign vouchers to 50% of the households in the list of each village. After winning the voucher lottery, individuals still had to decide whether to pick up the voucher, as well as whether and how to use it. Villages and individuals were subsequently divided among the different savings treatment, resulting in the final sample sizes shown in table 1. 5
6 Baseline statistics on the sample corroborate the validity of the randomization as there are no significant differences between voucher winners and losers in either household or farm characteristics (see on-line appendix table A-1). Sample household heads are 84% male and 76% are literate. By comparison, in rural Manica province, only 66% of household heads are male and 45% are literate, an indication that the targeted households are relatively less vulnerable compared to the rest of the region. Study households own an average 10.3 hectares of land owned (the median is 5 hectares). 11% of households have electricity at home, and 19% used fertilizer on at least one of their maize fields during the pre-intervention season. While better off than some, the study population is dominated by relatively poor small-scale farmers with limited experience with modern agro-inputs. The Impact of Voucher Coupons on the Use of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds This section investigates the impact of voucher coupons on the use of fertilizer and improved seeds. In addition to baseline data, the analysis here relies on data covering the second year of voucher program, A third survey round completed in the latter half of 2012 will allow inference on the effectiveness of the savings interventions. As described in the preceding section, voucher lottery winners had to pick-up and then decide whether and how to use the voucher coupons. To examine impacts, we will first look at the impact of simply winning the voucher lottery on seed and fertilizer use. After estimating these intention to treat effects, we consider some of the factors that limited the pick-up and use of voucher coupons. Using the voucher lottery results as an instrument, we also estimate local average treatment by looking at the impacts of voucher receipt and voucher use on improved seed and fertilizer uptake. Intention to Treat Estimates The randomization of the voucher lottery allows us to exploit the following simple reduced form equation to obtain intention to treat estimates of the impact of voucher coupons on seed and fertilizer use: Y iv a 0 a 1 Z iv X iv a 2 iv iv,, 6
7 Y iv where is either seed or fertilizer use by household i in village v, is an indicator equal to 1 if individual i was assigned to the treatment group (i.e., won the voucher lottery) and 0 otherwise, is a village fixed effect, is a vector of control variables (which generally includes the outcome at the previous period and the maize area cultivated), and is a mean zero error term of household i. Since the randomization of the treatment ensures that and are orthogonal, the ordinary least squares provide an unbiased estimator of v iv Ziv iv a 1, the Intention To Treat (ITT) effect. Village fixed effects and control variables are not necessary to obtain unbiased results, but increase the precision of the estimator. Table 2 reports the report these ITT effects for both fertilizer use and use of improved seeds. Both variables are measured as the total kilograms of both products used for maize cultivation. Results are presented for both the full sample, as well as for a trimmed sample which eliminated the 1% of observations that showed the largest change in the dependent variable relative to baseline. As can be seen, the ITT estimates are statistically significant, but the magnitudes are modest as they show that compared to the control group, the treatment group used on average 14.7 additional kilograms of fertilizer and 3.1 kg of improved seeds (using the trimmed results). As the voucher package subsidized the purchase of 100 kilograms of fertilizer, and 12.5 kilograms of improved seeds, these estimates indicate substantial slippage between program intent and program impact. The last two columns of table 2 give a first indication of what underlies these modest ITT estimates. Reported in these columns are the results from two regressions. The first regresses a binary indicator of whether the household picked up and actually received a voucher coupon on the lottery outcome variable. The second regresses an an indicator of whether the household cashed in and used the voucher coupon for its maize production on that same explanatory variable. As shown in the table, winning the lottery increased the probability of receiving a voucher from 12% to 50%, and it increased the chances of cashing in and using a voucher for maize production from 6% to 28%. X iv Z iv 7
8 These estimates reveal that there was significant leakage of vouchers to the control group. These leakages came from two sources. First some lottery losers tried to negotiate a voucher from the government s extension service. Second, the extension service was charged with redistributing all unused vouchers to other households. While this redistribution was to take place outside the study area in order not to contaminate the sample, it is likely that in some cases unused vouchers were distributed to lottery losers. In addition, we can also see that the ITT estimates are diluted by the low voucher pick-up and use rates by lottery winners. When entitled to receive a voucher, only half of beneficiaries picked it up and, conditional on picking up the voucher, only 57% redeemed it and used the content of the package for their maize production. Local Average Treatment Effects of the Voucher Program In an effort to understand these modest uptake rates, our survey queried individuals directly about their decisions to pick-up and use voucher coupons. Almost half of the farmers (46%) who did not pick up a voucher despite winning the lottery indicated that they lacked the USD 32 co-payment required to use the voucher. 3 Other farmers mentioned not being present at the time of voucher distribution (17% of cases) or the late distribution of vouchers (16% of cases) as the main reasons for not picking up their vouchers. Among those who picked up and received a voucher, 83% redeemed it, and 57% used the fertilizer obtained by the voucher for their maize production. Among those who received the voucher but did not redeem it, 54% reported not having the necessary amount of money to complete the subsidy, and 36% reported the non-availability or late arrival of the agro-inputs at the agro-dealer or the distance to the closest agro-dealer as reasons for non-participation. Among those who redeemed the voucher but did not use the fertilizer for maize production, 67% reported using it on other agricultural production (e.g., tobacco, horticulture), 25% claimed they had not yet used it, and 4% stated that they sold their fertilizer. These responses reveal the complexity of voucher programs. They also consistently signal the importance of liquidity constraints in determining who actually takes up voucher coupons, at least when co-payments are required. While the ITT 8
9 estimates in the prior section accurately identify the average impact on the target population, they understate the overall impact of the voucher program given that unused vouchers were redistributed to other farmers. In order to estimate this overall program impact, we implemented the following instrumental strategy to estimate the vouchers on the input use of those who chose to receive and use them: Y iv b 0 b 1 ˆDiv X iv b 2 v iv, where ˆD iv is the fitted value of voucher received (voucher used) from the regressions estimated in table 2 which use the random variable won lottery as an instrument. Table 3 displays the estimated increase in input use conditional on using the voucher (on-line appendix table A-2 displays the results for picking-up the voucher). Compared to the ITT estimate that winning the lottery boosted fertilizer use by 14 kilograms, the instrumental variable estimate of the impact of receiving the coupon is 39 kilograms, while the estimated impact of using the coupon for maize is 68 kilograms (table 3). This latter figure is still short of the 100 kilograms of fertilizer subsidized by the coupon, indicating that some farmers only sued part of the package or were simply substituting for fertilizer that they would have purchased even without the coupon. The results for improved seeds are somewhat stronger. Recalling that the coupon subsidized the purchase of 12.5 kilograms of improved seed, we see that the IV estimate for those who picked up the voucher is 6.4 kilograms, whereas it is estimated to be 14.4 kilograms for those who actually used the coupon in their maize production (table 3). Keeping in mind that these results could have been zero (had farmers simply been replacing their own self-financed purchases with the subsidized packages, or if they had simply been selling off the inputs to larger scale farmers), this analysis shows that there are indeed strong constraints to the adoption of improved seeds and fertilizers among Mozambique s small-scale maize farmers. At the same time, the modest use rates of the coupons signal difficulty of broadening the use of modern inputs amongst a poor population with little prior experience in using it. 9
10 Conclusions We have reported here results from a study undertaken in collaboration with the government of Mozambique in which we randomly selected 50% of a sample of smallscale maize farmers to receive voucher coupon that entitled them to receive a 73% subsidy on a package comprised of 100 kilograms of fertilizer and 12.5 kilograms of improved maize seeds. Intention to treat estimates reveal that the farmers selected to receive the coupons used 15 kilograms more fertilizer and 3 kilograms more improved seeds than did the control group. Instrumental variable estimates of the impact of actually using the voucher reveal impacts of 68 kilograms of fertilizer and 14 kilograms of maize seed. The difference between the two estimates reflects the relatively low rate of uptake and use of coupons by those selected to receive them. This relatively low use or compliance rate hints at the existence of other constraints (e.g., liquidity and informational) that limit the uptake of higher yield production practices. Even amongst those who used the subsidy, two important questions remain. First, did the agro-input package increase yields and family income, and if so, did it do so in a uniform fashion or is there strong impact heterogeneity. Second, assuming that the voucher increase incomes for those who used it, were they able to sustain their use of the improved technological package once the voucher program ended? As discussed above, a second dimension of the intervention studies examine this question and the degree to which a series of complementary savings interventions may have shaped the sustainability of the technology uptake. Work examining both questions is currently underway. Preliminary results suggest that the yield and income results are quite heterogeneous and that the matched savings intervention led to large increases in formal savings (Carter, Laajaj and Yang, 2013). Interestingly, as discussed in Laajaj (2012), these interventions seemed to have had a significant impact on individual s planning time horizons, with the poorer beneficiaries of these programs showing substantially greater patience than those randomly selected not to receive the program. Future research will also explore whether 10
11 these increased time horizons spillover and result in increased saving and technology adoption in the future. Table 1 Treatment Regimes and Number of Observations No savings (education Savings account Savings account session only) encouraged (information encouraged + and financial education) Matched Savings Voucher Winners R 00 R 01 R 03 (795) (267) (283) (245) Voucher Losers R 10 R 11 R 23 (798) (247) (311) (240) 11
12 Table 2 Intention to Treat Impact Estimates Fertilizer (kg) Improved seeds (kg) Voucher Received Voucher Used Won lottery 11.6* 14.8*** ** 0.38*** 0.22*** [5.85] [2.20] [1.87] [1.27] [0.02] [0.02] Fertilizer Prior Season (kg) 2.0*** 0.8*** [0.61] [0.13] Improved Seeds -3.5* Prior Season (kg) [2.05] [0.42] [0.38] [0.31] Maize Area 0.8*** 0.9*** Prior Season (ha) [0.06] [0.05] Constant *** 0.06*** [10.27] [3.30] [1.87] [1.44] [0.01] [0.01] Observations 1,408 1,393 1,414 1,400 1,429 1,436 R-squared Trimming 0% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% Robust standard errors in brackets, *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1 All regressions include village fixed effects. Trimming removes observations with highest absolute deviation between current and previous period. 12
13 Table 3 IV Impact Estimates of Using Voucher Fertilizer (kg) Improved seeds (kg) Voucher Used (instrumented) 52.2** 68.3*** *** [26.54] [9.34] [7.43] [5.40] Fertilizer Prior Season(kg) 2.0*** 0.7*** [0.61] [0.12] Improved Seeds Prior Season (kg) [2.14] [0.40] [0.30] [0.25] Maize Area 0.8*** 0.8*** Prior Season (ha) [0.07] [0.05] Observations 1,403 1,388 1,410 1,397 R-squared Trimming 0% 1% 0% 1% See Table 2 notes. 13
14 References Carter, M.R., R. Laajaj and D. Yang, The Heterogeneous Impact of Agro-Input Subsidies on Maize Production: A Field Experiment in Mozambique, Evenson, R.E. and D. Gollin, Assessing the impact of the Green Revolution, 1960 to 2000, Science, 2003, 300 (5620), Laajaj, R.. Closing the Eyes on a Gloomy Future: Psychological Causes and Economic Consequences, working paper, Paris School of Economics, Minot, N. and T. Benson Fertilizer subsidies in Africa: Are vouchers the answer? Technical Report Brief No 60, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), Washington, D.C. Endnotes 1 There is also debate about whether fertilizer use is even profitable in many parts of Africa. 2 The European Union funded the pilot, which was implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Fertilizer Development Center in collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture in Mozambique. 3 Extension workers stressed to farmers that they should not pick up the voucher if they lacked the funds to use it (so that the voucher could be given to another person who could use it). 14
15 Table A1 Baseline Statistics for Treatment and Control Groups Full Sample Voucher Losers Voucher Winners p-value Household Structure Resident Members Head s Education Head Male 84% 85% 83% 0.21 Head Age Head Literate 76% 76% 76% 0.61 Has Electricity 11% 11% 11% 0.95 Savings Acount 20% 19% 20% 0.7 Farm Size & Productivity Cultivated Area (ha) Irrigation 3% 4% 3% 0.61 Used Any Fertilizer 19% 18% 20% 0.23 Fertilizer (kg/ha) Maize Area (ha) Yields (kg/ha) Years used Fertilizer Number of Observations
16 Table A2 IV Impact Estimates of Receiving Vouchers Fertilizer (kg) Improved seeds (kg) Voucher Received (instrumented) 30.1* 38.1*** ** [15.44] [5.85] [4.27] [3.08] Fertilizer Prior Season (kg) 2.0*** 0.8*** [0.60] [0.10] Improved Seeds 0.8*** 0.01 Prior Season (kg) [0.07] [0.26] Maize Area *** Prior Season (ha) [2.11] [0.42] [0.31] [0.05] Observations 1,398 1,383 1,405 1,392 R-squared Trimming 0% 1% 0% 69 See table 3 notes
The Impact of Voucher Coupons on the Uptake of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Mozambique
The Impact of Voucher Coupons on the Uptake of Fertilizer and Improved Seeds: Evidence from a Randomized Trial in Mozambique Michael R. Carter, Rachid Laajaj and Dean Yang The use of improved seeds and
More informationSUBSIDIES &THE PERSISTENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION
SUBSIDIES &THE PERSISTENCE OF TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION Tara Steinmetz, Assistant Director, Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Assets & Market Access Evidence to Action Summit 25 May 2017 basis.ucdavis.edu Photo
More informationLow-quality, low-trust and lowadoption: Saharan Africa. Jakob Svensson IIES, Stockholm University
Low-quality, low-trust and lowadoption: Agriculture in Sub- Saharan Africa Jakob Svensson IIES, Stockholm University This talk Technology adoption in agriculture Use (or rather none-use) of fertilizer
More informationMaize Farming and Fertilizers: Not a Profitable Mix in Nigeria
CHAPTER 12 Maize Farming and Fertilizers: Not a Profitable Mix in Nigeria Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie, Bolarin T. Omonona, Awa Sanou, and Wale Ogunleye Overview Common wisdom: Despite being profitable,
More informationMeasuring the Impacts of Malawi s Farm Input Subsidy Program
Measuring the Impacts of Malawi s Farm Input Subsidy Program Christopher Chibwana, Monica Fisher, Charles Jumbe and Gerald Shively Paper presented at the COMESA/ACTESA/MSU 5 th AAMP Policy Symposium April
More informationIs Poverty a binding constraint on Agricultural Growth in Rural Malawi?
Is Poverty a binding constraint on Agricultural Growth in Rural Malawi? Draft Policy Brief By Mirriam Muhome-Matita and Ephraim Wadonda Chirwa 1. Context and Background Agriculture remains the most important
More informationInput Subsidy Programs in Asia What lesson can we learn for Africa
Input Subsidy Programs in Asia What lesson can we learn for Africa Shahidur Rashid (presenting) Paul A. Dorosh, IFPRI M.K. Mujeri, BIDS INPUT SUBSIDY PROGRAM IN SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA 16 APRIL 2013 WASHINGTON
More informationFinancing Agricultural Inputs in Africa: Own Cash or Credit?
CHAPTER 4 Financing Agricultural Inputs in Africa: Own Cash or Credit? Guigonan Serge Adjognon, Lenis Saweda O. Liverpool-Tasie, and Thomas Reardon Overview Common wisdom: Access to formal credit is limited;
More informationDEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS YALE UNIVERSITY P.O. Box New Haven, CT
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS YALE UNIVERSITY P.O. Box 208268 New Haven, CT 06520-8268 http://www.econ.yale.edu/ Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 1020 Economics Department Working Paper No. 111 Probability
More informationWHAT KINDS OF AGRICULTURAL STRATEGIES LEAD TO BROAD-BASED GROWTH?
WHAT KINDS OF AGRICULTURAL STRATEGIES LEAD TO BROAD-BASED GROWTH? IMPLICATIONS FOR FEED THE FUTURE AGRICULTURAL PROGRAMMING T.S. Jayne and Duncan Boughton Food Security III, Michigan State University USAID
More informationPublic Subsidies, Technology Targeting and Private Investment: Evidence from Laser Land Leveling in Uttar Pradesh, India
CSISA Research Note 4 Public Subsidies, Technology Targeting and Private Investment: Evidence from Laser Land Leveling in Uttar Pradesh, India Travis J. Lybbert, Nicholas Magnan, David J. Spielman, Anil
More informationTARGETING IN CONDITIONING CROWDING IN/OUT: David Mather and Isaac Minde
FERTILIZER SUBSIDIES & THE ROLE OF TARGETING IN CONDITIONING CROWDING IN/OUT: THE CASE OF TANZANIA David Mather and Isaac Minde Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics Michigan State University
More informationFactors Influencing Access to Agricultural Input Subsidy Coupons in Malawi
Working Paper Factors Influencing Access to Agricultural Input Subsidy Coupons in Malawi Ephraim W. Chirwa, Mirriam Matita and Andrew Dorward December 2011 Working Paper 027 Abstract Since the 2005/06
More informationImpact of Drought Index Insurance on Supplemental Irrigation: A Randomized Controlled Trial Experimental Evidence in Northern Ghana
Impact of Drought Index Insurance on Supplemental Irrigation: A Randomized Controlled Trial Experimental Evidence in Northern Ghana Francis H. Kemeze Department of Agricultural Economics and Agribusiness,
More informationECONOMICS OF HYBRID MAIZE PRODUCTION IN SOME SELECTED AREAS OF BANGLADESH. M. R. KARIM 1, MONIRUZZAMAN 2 AND Q. M. ALAM 3 Abstract
ISSN 0258-7122 Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 35(1) : 83-93, March 2010 ECONOMICS OF HYBRID MAIZE PRODUCTION IN SOME SELECTED AREAS OF BANGLADESH M. R. KARIM 1, MONIRUZZAMAN 2 AND Q. M. ALAM 3 Abstract The
More informationPB 6/2018 April 2018
PB 6/2018 April 2018 Implementing Agriculture input systems in Tanzania: Evidence from NAIVS By Cornel Jahari Key messages Implementation of NAIVS characterized by high community awareness and participation
More informationA profitability analysis of fertilizer use for maize production in Nigeria
GUIDING INVESTMENTS IN SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL INTENSIFICATION IN AFRICA (GISAIA) A profitability analysis of fertilizer use for maize production in Nigeria Liverpool-Tasie, L. S. O 1., Omonona, B.T.
More informationRandomized Evaluations in Practice: Opportunities and Challenges. Kyle Murphy Policy Manager, J-PAL January 30 th, 2017
Randomized Evaluations in Practice: Opportunities and Challenges Kyle Murphy Policy Manager, J-PAL January 30 th, 2017 Overview Background What is a randomized evaluation? Why randomize? Advantages and
More informationVIABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INPUT VOUCHERS
Assessment Report VIABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INPUT VOUCHERS in Grey Zone Areas of Donetsk and Luhansk Regions of Eastern Ukraine People in Need (PIN) October 2016 CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 3 INTRODUCTION...
More informationHow to Promote Sustainable Agriculture in Africa? Stein Holden Professor Norwegian University of Life Sciences
How to Promote Sustainable Agriculture in Africa? Stein Holden Professor Norwegian University of Life Sciences Email: stein.holden@umb.no Introduction My background in brief: Background in crop science
More informationThe Role of Farm Inputs Subsidy Program in the Malawi Economy
The Role of Farm Inputs Subsidy Program in the Malawi Economy Ephraim Chirwa Wadonda Consult Limited 19 th September 2013 Wadonda Consult Ltd Room 317/309 MPC Building PO Box 669, Zomba Malawi Tel-Fax:
More informationMARKET ANALYSIS NOTE #4
MARKET ANALYSIS NOTE #4 Grain Market Research Project Ministry of Economic Development and Cooperation March 997 Meeting Food Aid and Price Support Objectives Through Local Grain Purchase: A Review of
More informationImpact of Crop Intensification Program on Sustainable Maize Production in Rwanda
Int. Journal of Management and Development Studies 4(3): 318-324 (2015) ISSN (Online): 2320-0685. ISSN (Print): 2321-1423 Impact of Crop Intensification Program on Sustainable Maize Production in Rwanda
More informationBASIS AMA Research Program University of California, Davis basis.ucdavis.edu
BASIS AMA Research Program University of California, Davis basis.ucdavis.edu Feed the Future Food Security Innovation Labs: Collaborative Research Programs Meeting Examining Opportunities for Linkages
More informationFertilizer Sector Subsidy in India. Vijay Laxmi Pandey Suresh Babu
Fertilizer Sector Subsidy in India Vijay Laxmi Pandey Suresh Babu Indian Agriculture Net area sown : 141 Mha Cropping intensity : 139.5 Smallholders - 67% holdings < 1ha Number of operational holding 138
More informationUnderstanding the Barriers to Africa s Green Revolution: A RCT on barriers to take-up. Name removed for anonymity
Understanding the Barriers to Africa s Green Revolution: A RCT on barriers to take-up Name removed for anonymity Outline Context Background Literature Review Research Proposal Logical Framework Study Design
More informationFertilizer Subsidies in Sub- Saharan Africa: Smart Policy or Political Trap?
Participate during the seminar: #AgEvents March Follow 25, us on 2015 Twitter twitter.com/agrilinks Like us on Facebook facebook.com/agrilinks Fertilizer Subsidies in Sub- Saharan Africa: Smart Policy
More informationTechnoServe Coalition for Smallholder Sourcing
TechnoServe Coalition for Smallholder Sourcing Leveraging mobile phone technology to improve engagement with suppliers Results and lessons from an experiment in Mozambique Summary JFS-SAN, which uses an
More informationNetflix for Agriculture?
Motivation Conceptual Framework Empirics Netflix for Agriculture? Raissa Fabregas, Michael Kremer 1, Jonathan Robinson, and Frank Schilbach May 2017 1 Disclaimer: Michael Kremer is a PAD Board Member 1/
More informationProspects for the sectoral transformation of the rural economy in Tanzania
Prospects for the sectoral transformation of the rural economy in Tanzania An initial review of the evidence Todd Benson, James Thurlow, and Xinshen Diao Development Strategy and Governance Division International
More informationA review of methods for estimating yield and production impacts
A review of methods for estimating yield and production impacts Andrew Dorward and Ephraim Chirwa December 2010 Summary This paper documents methodological lessons from experience in estimating yield and
More informationZimbabwe. Grain and Feed Annual
THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Voluntary - Public Date: 7/11/2011 GAIN Report Number:
More information2016 Annual Impact: Country Report. April 2017 M&E Report
2016 Annual Impact: Country Report April 2017 M&E Report 1 Summary of Results Total Program Impact. As reported widely in the news media, farmers all across East Africa struggled to realize strong harvests
More informationCase Study. Irrigated and integrated agro production systems help Mozambique adapt to climate change. SDGs addressed CHAPTERS.
Case Study Irrigated and integrated agro production systems help Mozambique adapt to climate change MAPUTO SDGs addressed This case study was prepared based on the joint programme, Mozambique: environment
More informationAdjustment in Mexico s Crop Sector to Some Policy Changes Implemented in the 1990 s. Joe Dewbre Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
Adjustment in Mexico s Crop Sector to Some Policy Changes Implemented in the 1990 s Joe Dewbre Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Workshop on Agricultural Policy Reform and Adjustment
More informationDecisions on livestock keeping in the semi-arid areas of Limpopo Province. Simphiwe Ngqangweni and Christopher Delgado
Decisions on livestock keeping in the semi-arid areas of Limpopo Province Simphiwe Ngqangweni and Christopher Delgado Working paper: 2003-02 Department of Agricultural Economics, Extension and Rural Development
More informationBackground: MSU Input Studies
Background: MSU Input Studies Productivity studies in early 1990s concluded that inputs were a major constraint in the early post-reform period Studies of fertilizer profitability and NRM/fertilizer complementarities
More informationA data portrait of smallholder farmers
A data portrait of smallholder farmers An introduction to a dataset on small-scale agriculture The Smallholder Farmers Dataportrait is a comprehensive, systematic and standardized data set on the profile
More informationMemo: Difference-in-Difference Impact Results
Current Strategy Our annual impact evaluation efforts consist of obtaining wide geographic representation of One Acre Fund farmers and comparing their harvest yields and agricultural profit to those of
More informationLEARNING FROM AGRICULTURAL TRIALS. Subtitle
LEARNING FROM AGRICULTURAL TRIALS Subtitle Two Papers based on the Same Experiment Bridging the Yield Gap: from Agronomical to Economic Calculations of Returns Rachid Laajaj (U de Los Andes) Karen Macours
More informationSmallholder maize-nitrogen response rates, soil fertility, and profitability of inorganic fertilizer use on maize in Tanzania
Department of Agricultural, Food & Resource Economics Michigan State University School of Agricultural Economics & Business Studies Sokoine University of Agriculture Smallholder maize-nitrogen response
More informationFERTILIZER SUPPLY CHAIN IN NIGERIA
FERTILIZER SUPPLY CHAIN IN NIGERIA Adetola ADEOTI I. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan, Ibadan. INTRODUCTION Context Increases in agricultural productivity is linked with significant
More informationISSD Briefing Note September 2012 Mozambique Seed Sector Assessment
ISSD Briefing Note September 2012 Mozambique Seed Sector Assessment The seed sector at a glance The Mozambican seed sector is characterized by the farmer-saved seed system, which covers more than 70%,
More informationConservation Farming Unit
Conservation Farming Unit Comparison of maize yields obtained by different categories of smallholder farmers in Zambia in the 2012/13 agricultural Season Victor Shitumbanuma Department of Soil Science
More informationHow to Randomize? Dean Karlan Yale University. povertyactionlab.org
How to Randomize? Dean Karlan Yale University Outline of Today s Lectures This lecture Overview of different ways to randomize Convincing/How to gather support for evaluation Typical Plan Good Evaluation
More informationTanzania National Panel Survey LSMS-ISA: Gender
EPAR Brief No. 190 March 30, 2012 Tanzania National Panel Survey Living Standards Measurement Study - Integrated Surveys on Agriculture gender Professor Leigh Anderson, Principal Investigator Associate
More informationHow Sustainable Are Benefits from Extension for Smallholder Women Farmers? Evidence from a Reverse-Randomized Control Trial in Uganda
How Sustainable Are Benefits from Extension for Smallholder Women Farmers? Evidence from a Reverse-Randomized Control Trial in Uganda Vida Bobić, Ram Fishman, Stephen C. Smith and Munshi Sulaiman January
More informationRethinking Agricultural Input Subsidies in Poor Rural Economies
Discussion Paper Rethinking Agricultural Input Subsidies in Poor Rural Economies Andrew Dorward, Peter Hazell and Colin Poulton September 2007 Discussion Paper 005 Introduction Agricultural input subsidies
More informationViews of farmers and grass root level government officers on the present fertilizer subsidy programme in Sri Lanka
Views of farmers and grass root level government officers on the present fertilizer subsidy programme in Sri Lanka L.H.P.Gunaratne and Ryan Rienzie Agribusiness Centre Faculty of Agriculture University
More informationLearning from smallholder farmer contributions to seed multiplication and food security in Zimbabwe
Learning from smallholder farmer contributions to seed multiplication and food security in Zimbabwe Author: Ms Sithembile Maunze Organization: SNV Zimbabwe This case is one of a series specifically prepared
More informationLINKING FARMERS TO MARKETS IN AFRICA
ANNOUNCES AN INTERNATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM ON LINKING FARMERS TO MARKETS IN AFRICA NAIROBI, KENYA JULY 20-24, 2015 REGISTRATION FEES: Early Bird Registration and Payment by May 20 Regular Registration
More informationThe Impact of a Feeder Road Project on Cash Crop Production in Zambia s Eastern Province between 1997 and 2002
The Impact of a Feeder Road Project on Cash Crop Production in Zambia s Eastern Province between 1997 and 2002 Christian Kingombe Session ID 18: Agriculture micro 3: Agricultural markets 19th March 2012,
More informationOxfam Management response to the review of Resilience in Thailand: Impact evaluation of the climate change community-based adaptation model for food security project (Effectiveness Review Series 2014/15)
More informationESTIMATING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY: BIASES DUE TO OMISSION OF GENDER-INFLUENCED VARIABLES AND ENDOGENEITY OF REGRESSORS
ESTIMATING GENDER DIFFERENCES IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTIVITY: BIASES DUE TO OMISSION OF GENDER-INFLUENCED VARIABLES AND ENDOGENEITY OF REGRESSORS by Nina Lilja, Thomas F. Randolph and Abrahmane Diallo* Selected
More informationInternational Development Enterprises (India) IDEI is a not-for-profit company working in India since 1991
International Development Enterprises (India) www.ide-india.org Shivani Manaktala BDS Seminar 2004 Chiang Mai ABOUT IDEI IDEI is a not-for-profit company working in India since 1991 Target Segment : Small
More informationUC Davis The Proceedings of the International Plant Nutrition Colloquium XVI
UC Davis The Proceedings of the International Plant Nutrition Colloquium XVI Title Constraints and new opportunities for achieving a green revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa through Integrated Soil Fertility
More informationUnappreciated Facts about Staple Food Markets: The Potential for Win-Win Outcomes for Governments, Farmers, Consumers and the Private Sector
Unappreciated Facts about Staple Food Markets: The Potential for Win-Win Outcomes for Governments, Farmers, Consumers and the Private Sector T.S. Jayne and colleagues Michigan State University Presented
More informationAgricultural Risks Management in Africa A Synthesis
Agricultural Risks Management in Africa A Synthesis EPAR Brief No. 137 Justin Paulsen & Professor C. Leigh Anderson Prepared for the Agricultural Policy and Statistics Team Evans School Policy Analysis
More informationAgricultural Technology Adoption Initiative
Agricultural Technology Adoption Initiative ATAI in Brief Why don t smallholder farmers adopt proven technologies? Risk Info New Technology (eg. improved seeds, fertilizer, irrigation) Credit InputOutput
More informationCofinancing (US$M): b.were the project objectives/key associated outcome targets revised during implementation? No
IEG ICR Review Independent Evaluation Group Report Number: ICRR14728 1. Project Data: Date Posted: 06/26/2015 Country: Tanzania Project ID: P114291 Appraisal Actual Project Name: Tanzania - Project Costs
More informationPossibilities and Opportunities for Enhancing Availability of High Quality Seed Potato in Ethiopia: Lessons from the Successful 3G Project in Kenya
Possibilities and Opportunities for Enhancing Availability of High Quality Seed Potato in Ethiopia: Lessons from the Successful 3G Project in Kenya Ricardo A. Labarta International Potato Center, Regional
More informationFertilizer. Are Vouchers the Answer? Nicholas Minot and Todd Benson INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE. IFPRI Issue Brief 60 July 2009
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE sustainable solutions for ending hunger and poverty Supported by the CGIAR Fertilizer Subsidies in Africa Are Vouchers the Answer? Nicholas Minot and Todd Benson
More informationSubsidies and the Persistence of Technology Adoption: Field Experimental Evidence from Mozambique
Subsidies and the Persistence of Technology Adoption: Field Experimental Evidence from Mozambique Michael R. Carter, Rachid Laajaj, and Dean Yang* June 2014 Abstract We report the results of a randomized
More informationSubsidies inputs policy implication in Rwanda
Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science Vol. 6(1), pp. 18-24 January, 2016 Available online at http:// www.scholarly-journals.com/sjas ISSN 2276-7118 2016 Scholarly-Journals Full Length Research Paper
More informationDriving Financial Sustainability
Executive Summary There are many drivers that create the resources for organizational growth. Perhaps the most significant of these drivers is financial resources. Although money is no substitute for an
More informationMALAWI Food Security Update February 2010
The 2009/2010 growing season, which will end with the March harvest, remains favorable except for about 275,000 food insecure people in Balaka, Zomba, Nsanje, and Chikwawa districts. Currently, the government,
More informationThe African Smallholder Farmer s Perspective. Silas D. Hungwe President, Zimbabwe Farmers Union
The African Smallholder Farmer s Perspective Silas D. Hungwe President, Zimbabwe Farmers Union My comments will draw largely on the situation in Zimbabwe, a situation which is shared by countries not only
More informationThe Impact of Seasonal Food and Cash Loans on Smallholder Farmers in Zambia
The Impact of Seasonal Food and Cash Loans on Smallholder Farmers in Zambia Günther Fink (Harvard SPH) Kelsey Jack (Tufts University) Felix Masiye (UNZA) Tuesday, 22 March 2016 UNZA School of Veterinary
More informationDIME Impact Evaluation Workshop
DIME Impact Evaluation Workshop DIME Impact Evaluation Workshop Innovations for Agriculture Innovations for Agriculture 16-20 June 2014, Kigali, Rwanda 16-20 June 2014, Kigali, Rwanda Impact Evaluation
More informationImpact of Stress-Tolerant Rice on Farmer Welfare in India
Impact of Stress-Tolerant Rice on Farmer Welfare in India by Alain de Janvry, Kyle Emerick, Elisabeth Sadoulet University of California at Berkeley and Manzoor H. Dar, David Raitzer International Rice
More informationBusiness models for solar-powered irrigation in Ethiopia
Business models for solar-powered irrigation in Ethiopia Background This brief describes three business models for smallholder solar pump irrigation in Ethiopia, each with the potential to improve agricultural
More informationCase Study: High-Value Horticulture
Case Study: High-Value Horticulture Irrigation schemes and contract farming lucrative for Zimbabwean smallholders ZIMBABWEAN CONTEXT Most smallholder farming in Zimbabwe focuses on producing staple foods
More informationSeptember Expert Consultation on Statistics in Support of Policies to Empower Small Farmers. Bangkok, Thailand, 8-11 September 2009
Agenda item 5 STAT-EMPOWER-8 September 2009 Expert Consultation on Statistics in Support of Policies to Empower Small Farmers Bangkok, Thailand, 8-11 September 2009 STRATEGIES IN MEETING THE STATISTICAL
More informationImpacts of Selling Seed in Small Packs: Evidence from Legume Sales
Impacts of Selling Seed in Small Packs: Evidence from Legume Sales Louise Sperling & Sara Boettiger read about 2 Small packs 2 Evidence of impact 3 Challenges for scaling Key lessons for scaling seed 5
More informationFeed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy
Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Food Security Policy Policy Research Brief 14 February 2016 The Rewards of an Improved Enabling Environment: How Input Market Reform Helped Kenyan Farmers Raise Their
More informationEU support of its processing tomato industry and the competitive consequences for California
EU support of its processing tomato industry and the competitive consequences for California Bradley J. Rickard, Assistant Professor, Agribusiness Department California Polytechnic State University, San
More informationEl Salvador P4P Country Programme Profile
El Salvador Country Programme Profile Strategy El Salvador s smallholder farmers face a familiar set of barriers to market access: few options for marketing their produce, limited financial capacity to
More informationChallenges of commodity value chain development towards improving the competitiveness of agricultural commodity in Africa
AFRICA UNION Challenges of commodity value chain development towards improving the competitiveness of agricultural commodity in Africa Background Paper Prepared for the 2 nd Conference of the STC on Agriculture,
More informationAGRICULTURE IN BANGLADESH A NOTE ON FOOD SECURITY BY ENHANCING PRODUCTIVITY
AGRICULTURE IN BANGLADESH A NOTE ON FOOD SECURITY BY ENHANCING PRODUCTIVITY Summary Awami League s Election Manifesto 2008 appropriately recognizes the importance of ensuring food security for all in Bangladesh.
More informationMeasuring the impact of cash transfer programs on the local rural economy: combining household survey data with a business enterprise survey
Measuring the impact of cash transfer programs on the local rural economy: combining household survey data with a business enterprise survey Katia Covarrubias and Benjamin Davis Food and Agriculture Organisation
More informationCROP VARIETY IMPROVEMENT AND INFANT MORTALITY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD
CROP VARIETY IMPROVEMENT AND INFANT MORTALITY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD Prabhat Barnwal, Aaditya Dar, Jan von der Goltz, Ram Fishman, Gordon C. McCord, Nathan Mueller Motivation The health and welfare impacts
More informationIs Behavioral Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Really Better Together?
Is Behavioral Energy Efficiency and Demand Response Really Better Together? David Thayer, Wendy Brummer, Brian Arthur Smith, Rick Aslin, Pacific Gas and Electric Company and Jonathan Cook, Nexant ABSTRACT
More informationE-vouchers in Zimbabwe Guidelines for agricultural input distribution
E-vouchers in Zimbabwe Guidelines for agricultural input distribution E-vouchers in Zimbabwe Guidelines for agricultural input distribution The photographs used in this publication are from the FAO Zimbabwe
More informationMarket Liberalization and Agricultural Intensification in Kenya ( ) April 30, 2006
Market Liberalization and Agricultural Intensification in Kenya (1992-2002) Hugo De Groote 1, Simon Kimenju 1, George Owuor 2, Japheter Wanyama 3 1 International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre (CIMMYT),
More informationTHE PATHWAYS TO CROP DIVERSIFICATION IN MALAWI; a case study of tobacco production in Malawi
THE PATHWAYS TO CROP DIVERSIFICATION IN MALAWI; a case study of tobacco production in Malawi INTRODUCTION Crop diversification has been one of the strategies which Malawi has been trying to achieve for
More informationImpact of Modern Technology on Food Grain Production in Bangladesh
Impact of Modern Technology on Food Grain Production in Bangladesh * Dr. Md. Nazrul Islam The economy of Bangladesh is basically agrarian. At present agricultural sector accounts for about 15.8 percent
More informationThe productive impact of cash transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa
The productive impact of cash transfers in Sub-Saharan Africa Benjamin Davis Strategic Programme Leader, Rural Poverty Reduction Food and Agriculture Organization Designing and implementing high-quality,
More informationNudging and Subsidizing Farmers to Adopt: Some Puzzles. DIME-AADAPT Workshop Xavier Gine DECRG
Nudging and Subsidizing Farmers to Adopt: Some Puzzles DIME-AADAPT Workshop Xavier Gine DECRG Background Fertilizer use is low and stagnant in Africa Low fertilizer adoption accounts for much of lower
More informationAgricultural subsidy policies and its development in PR China
Study Report - Extract Agricultural subsidy policies and its development in PR China Report by Prof. Hu Xiangdong, CAAS, short-term expert Revised by DCZ Beijing, July 2017 1 1. Introduction The German-Sino
More informationTHIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S.
THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Voluntary - Public Date: 7/17/2014 GAIN Report Number:
More informationStrategy Options for the Maize and Fertilizer Sectors of Eastern and Southern Africa
Strategy Options for the Maize and Fertilizer Sectors of Eastern and Southern Africa T.S Jayne, D. Mather, and E. Mghenyi Presentation at DFID/London London, UK July 1, 2005 General consensus Need for
More informationCurrent Issues and Empirical Evidence from Malawi, Zambia, and Kenya. Isaac Minde, T.S. Jayne, Joshua Ariga, Jones Govereh, and Eric Crawford
Fertilizer Subsidies and Sustainable Agricultural Growth in Africa: Current Issues and Empirical Evidence from Malawi, Zambia, and Kenya Isaac Minde, T.S. Jayne, Joshua Ariga, Jones Govereh, and Eric Crawford
More informationComparative Advantage and Competitiveness of Wheat Crop in Pakistan. Sofia Anwar, Zakir Hussain, M. Siddique Javed *
The Lahore Journal of Economics 10 : 2 (Winter 2005) pp. 101-110 Comparative Advantage and Competitiveness of Wheat Crop in Pakistan Sofia Anwar, Zakir Hussain, M. Siddique Javed * This study was conducted
More informationStrategic Plan for Implementation of Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ) Program. Ministry of Food and Agriculture
Strategic Plan for Implementation of Planting for Food and Jobs (PFJ) Program Ministry of Food and Agriculture Some quick facts.. Engaged in Farming Activities Portion of rural households 90% Portion of
More informationPalay Production by Seed Type and Class in Nueva Ecija, Leyte and Davao del Norte
Palay Production by Seed Type and Class in Nueva Ecija, Leyte and Davao del Norte Department of Agriculture BUREAU OF AGRICULTURAL STATISTICS May 2006 FOREWORD This report presents the results of the Survey
More informationSmallholder marketed surplus and input use under transactions costs: maize supply and fertilizer demand in Kenya
AAAE Conference Proceedings (2007) 125-130 Smallholder mareted surplus and input use under transactions costs: maize supply and fertilizer demand in Kenya Arega D.A 1, Manyong V.M., 2 Omanya G., 3 Mignouna
More informationCSISA Research Note 10
Who are the entrepreneurs? A case for accelerated service economy for agricultural machinery in Odisha Vartika Singh, Patrick S. Ward, and Shweta Gupta March 2018 CSISA Research Note 10 Motivation The
More informationSocial Protection From Protection to Production. Livelihoods and Food Security Programme: Baseline data analysis for a LEWIE model Silvio Daidone
Social Protection From Protection to Production Livelihoods and Food Security Programme: Baseline data analysis for a LEWIE model Silvio Daidone A quick chronology December 2013: LFSP signed by FAO to
More informationMICROECONOMIC ISSUES IN KENYAN AGRICULTURE. Mary W. K. Mathenge
MICROECONOMIC ISSUES IN KENYAN AGRICULTURE Input Use and Productivity Mary W. K. Mathenge Presentation made during the Workshop on Modelling Impacts of National Policies on Kenyan Economy, Fair View Hotel,
More informationCan the production of non food crops be economically viable?
Can the production of non food crops be economically viable? The case of arable land reallocation in Greece Third Workshop of the EU Project: 4F CROPS Future Crops for Food, Feed, Fiber & Fuel Poznan,
More information